my first real SLR that I bought was the 450D, so before the age of digital how did Canon differentiate its model line up feature wise? I mean back say year 1998 the determiner of IQ was the lens and film and the paper that it was printed on. My point is, why have so many sensors across a brand's line up, with 1DX sensor, 5D3, 5D2 and then the rebel line up of sensors, if all camera's just over a decade ago had the same ability to capture light correct? So what you pay for then is build quality, FPS, and metering etc.

It's the sensor. Could you buy 25,600 speed film back in 1988 and shoot low-light football at 1/2000s at night? Of course not. They didn't do it that way. DSLR's, namely the 1D X, is truly revolutionary.

It's the sensor. Could you buy 25,600 speed film back in 1988 and shoot low-light football at 1/2000s at night? Of course not. They didn't do it that way. DSLR's, namely the 1D X, is truly revolutionary.

Delta 3200 pushed 3 stops. (You set ISO manually at 6400 and then set exposure compensation at -2).

It's the sensor. Could you buy 25,600 speed film back in 1988 and shoot low-light football at 1/2000s at night? Of course not. They didn't do it that way. DSLR's, namely the 1D X, is truly revolutionary.

Delta 3200 pushed 3 stops. (You set ISO manually at 6400 and then set exposure compensation at -2).

Don't like grain? Just shoot medium format or larger.

Coincidence, tonight I just shot a 120 roll of Delta 3200 at iso4000. We'll see how it turns out (1/30s at f/2.8-4, it was dark in there)

paul13walnut5

I loved the rush to the letter box when the slides came back. I loved the smell as you popped open the plastic box. I far preview holding a slide up to natural light and looking though, much more of sensation of depth of field, than on a VDU.

When they stopped making AGFA Scala a bit of me died. I've still got a roll of XP2 in the cupboard. Might roll out the old EOS 3 with my 100mm f2.0..

Getting back to the original post. I think the answer is pretty straightforward.

Pre-digital meant that film and camera were two separate things. You bought a camera and you bought film to go into that camera. The variety of film available far exceeds the variety of sensors currently available. You had slow speed, fine grain B&W (slow being about ASA 25) up to "fast" 800 ASA, with most people shooting 400 Tri-X. Maybe not the best, but it was the most readily available and sold the most in the U.S. at least. Then you had color print films and color slide films, all in various flavors of speed. Not to mention Tungsten and Daylight versions.

In addition, you had many different film formats, from large sheet films to tiny drop-in cassettes, all with a variety of speeds.

Today, every camera uses only one "film" and that's the sensor. It has to do everything and it is part of the camera (no changing sensors at least for now). B&W, color print, color transparencies, high speed, low speed, tungsten, daylight, etc. all in one sensor. So, really, it should come as no surprise that there are a few (and really it's only a relative handful of varieties of sensors that are available) different flavors of sensors.

One more thing. The quality of that sensor, even in the smallest formats, vastly exceeds the quality of most films. In the old days it was generally conceded that even the cheapest lenses would outperform the film's resolving power. Today, sensors are pushing the limits of what lenses can resolve.

Bottom line: The choices in film that consumers used to make are now incorporated into the camera. So it should come as no surprise that cameras need to offer more variety for consumers to choose from. After all, who wants less choice as a consumer. I certainly don't.

my first real SLR that I bought was the 450D, so before the age of digital how did Canon differentiate its model line up feature wise? I mean back say year 1998 the determiner of IQ was the lens and film and the paper that it was printed on. My point is, why have so many sensors across a brand's line up, with 1DX sensor, 5D3, 5D2 and then the rebel line up of sensors, if all camera's just over a decade ago had the same ability to capture light correct? So what you pay for then is build quality, FPS, and metering etc.

It all bolts down to two item: Money and Requirement. Use existing Canon lineup as an example: On the FF, we have the IDx and the 5DIII with different sensor, different resolution, different physical size and different feature. So if you are into FF then you have your choice depends on your requirement and how much you want to spend. The same goes to APS-C with the 7D, 60D, T4i and Xsi. Then between the FF and APS-C that is another choice. In order to get the most out of FF execellent lenses are required. So everything is more expensive with the FF body. On the other hand, APS-C serves another purpose. For people that never make 20X30 inch print It is an excellent media. It is cheaper than the FF with less requirement on the lens (using the best part of image circle). Also for the "bird shooter", a shorter lens can be used.

"Vastly superior"? To say a cheap point and shoot sensor is better than a large format fine grain film image printed well is specious. I make no argument in favor of film, but just put your apples and oranges in proper perspective.I beg to differ on many points.Having worked for a wafer fabricator, you don't just cut out more or less dies per wafer to get more or better.Wafer yield drops significantly with die size and complexity regardless of end product. Its way more complicated than you think or allude to.CCD chips were way noisier sensors than CMOS, but cheaper to produce, and had higher yields.Sensor site size is way more important than total sites to image quality, especially when it comes to SNR problems.Only recently have sensor producers been able to cram more sites with less noise on a FF sensor.Image quality is also tied directly to the quality of the ADC chip and other camera circuitry. Since there is a Bayer pattern issue and inherent interpolation, and a AA filter, these all can degrade image quality on a poorly designed camera package.More megapixels just means a bigger print, but not necessarily a good image to print larger either.Look at the first generation FF camera and the images were garbage compared to well scanned and digitally edited film captures.If anything the improvements in digital editing are the levelers in the Film vs Digital debate.In the computer industry we have had a very basic axiom...GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.My two cents worth from a film and digital shooter.

Logged

Canon 5D MKIII, Hasselblad, Contax, Large Format, and of course my first Camera a German Kodak Instamatic with a Schneider lens and controls!

DB

My first SLR was an Olympus OM-10 (one of the most common affordable SLR's of the 1980s - a bit like the Rebels today), but my camera bag back then was bulging with accessories from ASA 25 to 400 film rolls, to Cokin filters and polarizers, plus a bunch of lenses from primes to tele-zooms and wide angles -> all costing from £50 to £200. As well as a lot of spare batteries for my power-winder.

Back then, camera bodies cost 4x or 5x the price of a good lens, unlike today. Film was not cheap either and prices varied wildly from the well known brands to generics.

However, unlike the ability to crop in PS today, in those days you could take a negative and with a Reducer/Enlarger (looked a bit like today's microscopes) you could take part of an image and blow it up to a full-size print and it would look perfect. I have a 7x5 photo still of my 19-year old nephew at his baptism where I was 30 or 40 feet away with a 220mm zoom and got a picture of him in his mother's arms, alongside half a dozen other people, but I isolated his little face and turned it into a full-sized print. Try 1600% magnification in Photoshop and look at all the square pixels.

I processed and developed all of my own colour film - had to cos' the labs would put stickers on my negatives saying 'wrong exposure' or 'unable to develop' if I had used colour filters e.g. red ones taking pictures of old castles for instance to create an effect.

Digital is a whole lot better in terms of high initial cost, but then low-cost in consumables. I guess the defining difference between film and digital is 'composition'. In the old days you thought about and planned your composition the night before. Now, with modern DSLR's you have opportunistic shooting at will, all of the time.

That is the consumerism part of modern photography, along with the desire to have the latest & greatest.

Hi, i am newbie here.. i just 21 years old i think i used film when i was 13years old.. but digital surely nicer to be used... as long as the camera shooting raw, definitely can get nice picture.. here are some example of benefit especially photoshot.The first one shoot with raw with 5dm2.. there are still plenty of dynamic range eventhough the model face is underexposed. i think that nowadays sensor keep updating is to trying to improve a better DR..

paul13walnut5

Digital is a whole lot better in terms of high initial cost, but then low-cost in consumables.

I can reliably inform you that the last entry level film SLRs (Nikon f65's, EOS 300x's, Dynax 5's) cost only a little less than what folk are paying now for cameras like the D3100 or 1100D, the budget DSLRs are probably cheaper in real terms than the last equivalent film era cameras cost.

At the top end it is a bit different, however, & decent lenses seem more expensive than ever.